I believe God exists

[suzy smith]

God is hidden. Thus nothing can prove He exists.

[FONT=&quot] If you believe in a Godless universe, not only are you in error from being utterly lopsided to one side of the fence, you are actually removing the foundation by which you view all creation in your mind. What this means is, you float in an amoral void because you have nothing to base your beliefs on, other than preference and whimsy. It destroys you inside: Pure atheism leads to self-deception, egotism, confusion, ignorance - evils of the worst kind.[/FONT]
[/FONT]

This has two affects on me. It reinforces my atheistic beliefs and reminds me that some theists can be a little harsh when describing an atheist like me.

Is it too difficult for some theists to accept that we atheists don’t need to ‘believe’ in anything. Life for us ticks over very nicely thank you without a need to believe in God. [Even if I am confused and evil?]

 

[Sees]

My theistic opinion - not only are atheists usually as moral as theists, usually the morality has more integrity, dignity, and honesty. Too many theists don't believe in being good for goodness' sake, virtue as it's own reward, simply because it's the right thing, etc. The morality too often stays at the childish level of reward and punishment and "somebody's always watching"

 

[McBell]

All of what goes into the interpretation of data. All of what influences the perceptual reality of the thinker: culture, language, developmental growth, interior realization, states of consciousness, etc. We make assumptions that how we think is somehow magically pure and free from coloration, even our rationalistic and scientific lenses we look through. "If I see it, touch it, taste it, smell it, then it is the truth", etc.


Yes, and hence why would should not privilege one mode of knowing over the others. Each view must be examined, plumbed, and balanced in a holistic experience of truth.


Only when privileging knowledge to propositional truths reasoned through logic, which are themselves relative to the person and the average mode consciousness of their cultures. But the world to the human spirit is not a matter of true/false statements, but of being itself and the light of knowledge that exposes.

Ah, now all you have to do is define spirit and show it exists as defined.

Good luck with that.

 

[Windwalker]

Ah, now all you have to do is define spirit and show it exists as defined.

Good luck with that.

That's it? This is the total of your response to the points I raised? Here's your definition of spirit: the sound of one hand clapping. Describe that to me.

Now, perhaps you wish to address the points I raised, rather than creating a distraction from them. Unless your goal is to create a red herring to avoid engaging in discussion. Spirit by "definition" is beyond definition, including that one.

 

[McBell]

That's it? This is the total of your response to the points I raised? Here's your definition of spirit: the sound of one hand clapping. Describe that to me.

Thank you.
Anything else you would like to dictate to me?

You are the one who dodged my inquiry with the ever elusive "spirit".

Now, perhaps you wish to address the points I raised, rather than creating a distraction from them. Unless your goal is to create a red herring to avoid engaging in discussion. Spirit by "definition" is beyond definition, including that one.

My apologies.
I should have been more clear.
I meant you need to define "spirit" in such a manner that it use a useful concept and then show that this ever elusive "spirit" safety net exists.

Though I do find it rather revealing that you accuse me of red herring when it is yourself who is using the "spirit" safety net...

 

[Windwalker]

Spirituality is that which deals with matter of ultimate concern. Being, existence itself. The nature of reality. And so forth. It is by its very nature, elusive. But it is not beyond apprehension. It will however evade definitions, and thus a mental comprehension. It is in us, in all things, and is itself not a "thing". It is thus not possible to speak of it using dualistic language which requires subject/object distinctions. You are trying to force-fit reality into linguistic structures. But it is possible to move beyond them, and know, "spirit".

Does this help?

 

[Willamena]

Spirituality is that which deals with matter of ultimate concern. Being, existence itself. The nature of reality. And so forth. It is by its very nature, elusive. But it is not beyond apprehension. It will however evade definitions, and thus a mental comprehension. It is in us, in all things, and is itself not a "thing". It is thus not possible to speak of it using dualistic language which requires subject/object distinctions. You are trying to force-fit reality into linguistic structures. But it is possible to move beyond them, and know, "spirit".

Does this help?

But what are you referring to as 'spirit'? An idea? What is 'beyond' and what is it 'beyond' of?

 

[Windwalker]

But what are you referring to as 'spirit'? An idea? What is 'beyond' and what is it 'beyond' of?

I'm referring to a state of being, an awareness that is not bound by thoughts and idea, definitions or categories. It is Freedom of being. And the word "spirit" means "wind", so it is descriptive of that freedom, not a definition of it. The spiritual therefore is that which transcends boundaries and limitations, entirely. Yet, as such is within all that exists. Or rather may know as all that exists.

But the problem is people take a word like this, a word like God, and wish to make it a "thing", an object distinct from us. And then they anthropomorphism this as some "person", or what have you. Spirit is us. Knowing that is the only issue, not whether it exists or not. If you don't know it in yourself, to you it doesn't exist because you are not free of boundaries. If someone wishes "proof" of spirit, then enter into silence and know yourself. Then you know spirit.

 

[Willamena]

I'm referring to a state of being, an awareness that is not bound by thoughts and idea, definitions or categories. It is Freedom of being. And the word "spirit" means "wind", so it is descriptive of that freedom, not a definition of it. The spiritual therefore is that which transcends boundaries and limitations, entirely. Yet, as such is within all that exists. Or rather may know as all that exists.

But the problem is people take a word like this, a word like God, and wish to make it a "thing", an object distinct from us. And then they anthropomorphism this as some "person", or what have you. Spirit is us. Knowing that is the only issue, not whether it exists or not. If you don't know it in yourself, to you it doesn't exist because you are not free of boundaries. If someone wishes "proof" of spirit, then enter into silence and know yourself. Then you know spirit.

Surely if it is some form of "being" it is necessarily bound by idea?

 

[RedJamaX]

…if you marry faith to reason…

Then all usable data acquired through reason becomes subject to change without reason, and thus, just as useless as faith in process determination and examination.

…we must arrive at a First Cause…

You are assuming that infinity is impossible… that is currently an “unknown”. The “First-Cause” thought experiment, just as all thought experiments, is a theological mind game in which the only product is how complex an idea the human mind can comprehend, but says absolutely nothing about the reality of the universe we live in. And one step further, by asserting a “god”, or a “being” of any kind, you are also making the assumption that the universe was created with intent. Just to stop the “god is nature” responses now… first, why call nature “god” unless your intent is simply to be deceptive and manipulative.

… there is a meaning and intended purpose for your life here on Earth as well … …the creator is ultimately infinitely loving… …[FONT=&quot]God is a loving creator…[/FONT]

Second, I know you are not speaking about nature because you indicate that the god you speak of is loving and that we have a purpose, which implies that god created us with intent.

…look at His creation for an Order about it, a design, an infinite series of patterns interlaced to maintain the stability of the Cosmos. You can examine the patterns in Nature to gain a clearer sense of that not only that the creator is ultimately infinitely loving, but you can also start to grasp that there is a meaning and intended purpose for your life here on Earth as well…

More on that… we can examine the physics of our universe and trace all causality down to the constants of the universe which can be plugged into equations and explain why atoms react the way they do. When you extrapolate that information out from atomic reactions, to molecular reactions, to chemical/physical reactions, then you see that while there is a system in place for the function of our universe, not only does the system NOT require any design or god, but that system doesn’t even imply one either.

… how do you know there was a First Cause? … …The very concept of beginning itself is rooted in our perception that something can emerge from something else and be totally distinct from its origin; a baby is not its mother, and yet it took form, grew inside her, and was birthed. Thus, since all things in finite manifestation have beginnings, causality itself, which is a limited and finite concept, must too have a beginning…

Your analogy of the mother-and-baby when comparing the beginning of the universe is far removed from a correct comparison. I’m sure that this, like many other failed tactics, work great to re-assert belief for those who already believe, but this just shows your ignorance when it’s presented to those who are more educated on these subjects.

First, the truth about the beginning of the universe is that we currently don’t know. Physicists can work the physics and math all the way back to the first 3 seconds (or is it minutes?) of the Big Bang, but beyond that time, the physics of our current universe were not fully developed and we have NO IDEA what came before that. That means that all the matter in a previous universe could have collapsed on itself and our current universe emerged from that, or that there are some properties of some other kind of physics outside our universe that caused (without intent) the beginning of our universe.

Second, we know how babies get here. They are not “created” in the same sense that you are making the comparison of the universe being created from nothing. A Sperm cell and an Egg cell merge … Energy is transferred from the mothers body into the cells … The cells replicate just the way that they have developed that ability to do so in the existing system of our natural universe… etc etc… baby is born… no “creation”, or god.

[FONT=&quot]… I am an 'atheistic theist' and a 'theistic atheist'… … God is hidden, utterly unknowable. Thus, in the realm of manifestation - existence - God does not exist. Therefore, atheism is true.…[/FONT]

I’ve never talked to any atheist (who wasn’t recently de-converted or still in the process) who identifies atheism as being “true” or “false”… Atheism is a point of view on ONE single thing. Do you believe in god? No? Then you are an atheist. If you believe in god AT ALL, you are NOT an atheist. Personally I disagree with Dawkins 7 degrees of belief because any agnostic qualifies as an atheist really… belief in something indicates that you are convinced… If you “don’t know” even by just a little bit, then you are NOT convinced and cannot actually “believe”, even if you want to, and live your life as though you do. To me, ANY level of agnosticism equates to being an atheist. You either believe, or you don’t.

[FONT=&quot]BUT, refer to what I wrote previously in this post: Through inference, you CAN identify there is a creator. Therefore, theism is true.[/FONT]

However, since your argument is built on fallacies, this point of view doesn’t hold up, and therefore, you CANNOT “[FONT=&quot]identify there is a creator.”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]being totally in favor of the other side of the fence - that of Knowing God, is poisoned too: You have basically used faith to imagine up an idea of a creator (usually someone else's idea, from a book such as the Bible), an image of the creator that is basically just an anthropomorphic fallacy (a reflection of you, your ideas, your fears). So in ascribing God ANY specific qualities without basis, you have only started to worship a vain idol in your mind that you refer to as God - thus, a blind theist is no better than an atheist.[/FONT]

This part, I agree with. There have even been studies done in which people are monitored for brain activity in which they are asked; “What do you think about X?”; “What does your friend think about X?”; and “What does god think about X?”… The answers for what god thinks lit up the exact same brain activity as the question being directed at the individual him or herself. But the brain uses another section to “guess” what some other real person thinks about a particular subject.

[FONT=&quot]Another and better theory I can bring forward to you is that God is pure Order - that Chaos is not God's creation, but that God presides over Chaos and through perfect power, shapes it into creation.[/FONT]

So, are you implying that god is controlling every individual subatomic particle in the universe to form it to what see right now? Not in the sense that the physics of our natural world define the properties and boundaries of our physical existence… but literally, god controls every particle with “intent”???

[FONT=&quot]Before you jump to any conclusions about God - such as "why is life so unfair if there is a God?", you must ask yourself - if you really find existence unfair, what exactly were you comparing it to, in order to arrive at this conclusion?[/FONT]

I stopped all of that nonsense when I realized that I am, and have always been, an atheist… An atheist who was making attempts to believe in god because my family, friends, peers… basically my entire social order that I grew up with had been telling me that god is real.

[FONT=&quot]You have to recognize God is real, but he 'does not exist' - He is hidden from finite comprehension, because He is infinite. I have really said nothing here, and yet in some way you will begin to understand what I am talking about.[/FONT]

This, and the remaining parts of your post are simply nonsensical theoretical rhetoric or Symantec word games. Those kinds of thing only work on people who are ignorant about the subjects being discussed, those who have little critical thinking skills, those people who already believe, or those who are simply looking to re-assert their beliefs.

[FONT=&quot]Food for thought, hope you enjoy[/FONT]

 

[Windwalker]

Surely if it is some form of "being" it is necessarily bound by idea?

Only in the description of it. When I speak of being, it really means just pure consciousness, not "a" being.

 

[Willamena]

Only in the description of it. When I speak of being, it really means just pure consciousness, not "a" being.

I see. In my vernacular, you're speaking of reality rather than being. But a case could be made for them being indistinguishable.

 

[Windwalker]

I see. In my vernacular, you're speaking of reality rather than being. But a case could be made for them being indistinguishable.

Yes, I know. Words convey less than reality.